The article doesn't open with "girl empowerment", it is contrasting two recent (at the time) events involving females and males to segue into the general spirit of how the author thinks males and females were perceived in society as of 2000, which is when the article was written.
Therefore, interpreting it as zero sum is simplistic and probably incorrect.
It is not and it should not be. Splitting co-ed classes into single-sex classes solves the issue. Same goes for teachers being mostly female - just hire male teachers for boy classes.
EDIT: solves the issue of same model of class education being forced onto both girls and boys.
Comments
I think it's telling that the article opens with girl empowerment as a segue into boys being kept down.
This isn't zero sum, people.
The article doesn't open with "girl empowerment", it is contrasting two recent (at the time) events involving females and males to segue into the general spirit of how the author thinks males and females were perceived in society as of 2000, which is when the article was written.
Therefore, interpreting it as zero sum is simplistic and probably incorrect.
It is not and it should not be. Splitting co-ed classes into single-sex classes solves the issue. Same goes for teachers being mostly female - just hire male teachers for boy classes.
EDIT: solves the issue of same model of class education being forced onto both girls and boys.
Where did you hear this from?
They may have been referring to something like this:
http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/ednext20064_68....